http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/10574/pg10574-images.html
NOTE: The chapters in the text of Hume's History of England are not subdivided into Sections, as my posts will be. The Sections will broadly (not always exactly) correspond with the subdivisions of the LibraVox recording of the book to which I am listening.
Abuses of the civil power against a single individual
I'm convinced this was an important conflict, especially when it come to question of civil vs ecclesiastical power. So I organized the text with Sub-Headings to help me understand the proceedings.
HENRY ATTEMPT#2a
"[...] and Henry hastened to make him feel the effects of an obstinacy which he deemed so criminal. He instigated John, mareschal of the exchequer, to sue Becket in the archiepiscopal court for some lands, part of the manor of Pageham; and to appeal thence to the king's court for justice. [...]"
David Hume, History of England, Vol.1, Ch.8, Section 3, 1762 (italics added)
BECKET RESPONSE TO HENRY ATTEMPT#2a
"[...] On the day appointed for trying the cause, the primate sent four knights to represent certain irregularities in John's appeal; and at the same time to excuse himself, on account of sickness, for not appearing personally that day in the court. [...]"
David Hume, History of England, Vol.1, Ch.8, Section 3, 1762
OUTCOME OF HENRY ATTEMPT#2a
"[...] This slight offence (if it even deserve the name) was represented as a grievous contempt; the four knights were menaced and with difficulty escaped being sent to prison, as offering falsehoods to the court. [...]"
David Hume, History of England, Vol.1, Ch.8, Section 3, 1762
HENRY ATTEMPT#2b
"[...] And Henry, being determined to prosecute Becket to the utmost, summoned, at Northampton, a great council [of barons and clergy], which he purposed to make the instrument of his vengeance against the inflexible prelate. [...]
The barons, notwithstanding, in the great council, voted whatever sentence he was pleased to dictate to them; and the bishops themselves, who undoubtedly bore a secret favour to Becket, and regarded him as the champion of their privileges, concurred with the rest in the design of oppressing their primate."
David Hume, History of England, Vol.1, Ch.8, Section 3, 1762 (italics added)
BECKET'S DEFENSE TO HENRY ATTEMPT#2b
"[...] In vain did Becket urge that[:]
his court was proceeding with the utmost regularity and justice in trying the maresehal's cause;
[that the maresehal's case] would appear, from the sheriff's testimony, to be entirely unjust and iniquitous:
that he himself [that is, Becket] had discovered no contempt of the king's court; but, on the contrary, by sending four knights to excuse his absence, had virtually acknowledged its authority:
that he also, in consequence of the king's summons, personally appeared at present in the great council, ready to justify his cause against the mareschal, and to submit his conduct to their inquiry and jurisdiction:
that even should it be found that he had been guilty of non-appearance, the laws had affixed a very slight penalty to that offence:
and that, as he was an inhabitant of Kent, where his archiepiscopal palace was seated, he was by law entitled to some greater indulgence than usual in the rate of his fine. [...]"
David Hume, History of England, Vol.1, Ch.8, Section 3, 1762 (italics and formatting added)
HENRY'S RESPONSE TO BECKET'S DEFENSE TO HENRY ATTEMPT#2b
"[...] Notwithstanding these pleas, [Becket] was condemned as guilty of a contempt of the king's court, and as wanting in the fealty which he had sworn to his sovereign [not because of the land question]; all his goods and chattels were confiscated;
and that this triumph over the church might be carried to the utmost, Henry, Bishop of Winchester [the brother of the prior King Stephen], the prelate who had been so powerful in the former reign, was, in spite of his remonstrances, obliged, by order of the court, to pronounce the sentence against him. The primate [that is, Becket] submitted to the decree; and all the prelates, except Folliot, Bishop of London, who paid court to the king by this singularity, became sureties for him. [...]"
David Hume, History of England, Vol.1, Ch.8, Section 3, 1762 (italics and formatting added)
HUME'S COMMENTARY
"[...] It is remarkable that seven Norman barons voted in this council; and we may conclude, with some probability, that a like practice had prevailed in many of the great councils summoned since the Conquest. For the contemporary historian, who has given us a full account of these transactions, does not mention this circumstance as anywise singular; and Becket, in all his subsequent remonstrances with regard to the severe treatment which he had met with, never founds any objection on an irregularity which to us appears very palpable and flagrant. So little precision was there at that time in the government and constitution!"
David Hume, History of England, Vol.1, Ch.8, Section 3, 1762 (italics added)
No comments:
Post a Comment